THE CONCEPT OF COURT UNIFICATION REFERS TO A MODEL FEATURING JURISDICTIONAL UNIFORMITY, INTERNAL CONTROL BY THE HIGHEST APPELLATE COURT, CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING OF TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS, AND EMPLOYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND PARAPROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL. ONCE UNANIMOUSLY FAVORED AS THE BEST DIRECTION FOR REFORM, UNIFICATION HAS BECOME THE FOCUS OF INTENSE CONTROVERSY. IT IS NO LONGER OBVIOUS THAT UNIFICATION IS DESIRABLE, OR EVEN WHAT THE TERM REALLY MEANS. TO SHED LIGHT ON THE UNIFICATION OF STATE COURT SYSTEMS, THE COMPONENTS, DETERMINANTS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF UNIFICATION IN THE 50 STATE COURT SYSTEMS ARE ANALYZED. RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO FIT ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS INTO A PREDETERMINED SCHEME (AS HAS BEEN DONE IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH), THE ANALYSIS EMPLOYS AN EMPIRICAL METHOD TO IDENTIFY DIMENSIONS ON WHICH DIFFERENCES IN TRIAL COURT ORGANIZATION BETWEEN STATES ARE CONTINUOUS RATHER THAN DISCRETE. THREE MAIN DIMENSIONS COMPONENTS OF COURT ORGANIZATION ARE IDENTIFIED: STRUCTURE (THE EXTENT TO WHICH TRIAL COURTS THROUGHOUT A STATE HAVE SIMILAR JURISDICTION), INTERNAL CONTROL (THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE STATE'S HIGHEST APPELLATE COURT REGULATES TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS THROUGH RULEMAKING AND TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT POWERS), AND MANAGEMENT-BUDGETING (THE AMOUNT OF CENTRALIZED RESPONSIBILITY EXERCISED IN FINANCIAL MATTERS). THERE IS LITTLE OR NO EMPIRICAL CONNECTION AMONG THESE DIMENSIONS, EACH IS DISCRETE. IT APPEARS THAT THE CONCEPT OF COURT UNIFICATION MUST BE DISAGGREGATED INTO MORE FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF STATE JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION. ANALYSIS OF SOURCES OF BETWEEN-STATE DIFFERENCES IN THESE DIMENSIONS OF COURT ORGANIZATION REVEALS THAT HISTORICAL PROCESSES, RATHER THAN ENVIRONMENTAL (DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOECONOMIC, POLITICAL, LEGAL) CONDITIONS, DETERMINE ORGANIZATION OF A STATE'S COURTS. IT APPEARS THAT COURT SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN UNRESPONSIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE BECAUSE THE SYSTEMS ARE PRODUCTS OF CERTAIN ERAS OF ORIGIN AND SEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT. ANALYSIS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNIFICATION FOR THE WORK PERFORMED BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES FINDS THAT UNIFICATION NARROWS THE RANGE OF CASES HEARD BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES, CAUSING THEM TO CONCENTRATE ON PRIVATE-SECTOR CIVIL LITIGATION WHILE PARAJUDICIAL PERSONNEL ABSORB LARGE SHARES OF THE WORKLOAD ARISING FROM PUBLIC-SECTOR TRAFFIC, JUVENILE, CRIMINAL LITIGATION. SUPPORTING DATA AND A BIBLIGORAPHY ARE PROVIDED. (LKM)